The Fifth Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party

April 30-May 19 (May 13-June 1), 1907

Report of the Commission Formed to Draft a Resolution
on the State DumaMay 18 (31)

Ourcommission has not come to any agreement. Six voted for the Bolshevik draft
and six against. Five voted for the Menshevik draft and five against. One
abstained. I must now briefly defend our Bolshevik draft to you, since the
Polish Social-Democrats and the Latvians are in agreement with it.

Weproceeded from the proposition that everything already stated in the
resolution on the bourgeois parties must be deleted from the resolution on the
State Duma, since the Duma struggle is only a part, and not the principal part,
of our struggle against the bourgeois parties and the autocracy.

Inthe present resolution we speak only of what our policy in the Duma must
be. As to an assessment of how we managed to get into the Duma, we deleted this
part of the resolution— the point on the boycott—for the following
reasons. It seems to me personally, and to all the Bolsheviks, that in view of
the stand taken by all the liberal press we should have given an appraisal of
how we got into the Duma. In opposition to the entire liberal bourgeoisie, the
workers’ party must declare that, for the time being, we must reckon with such
an ugly institution because of the treachery of
the bourgeoisie. But the Latvian comrades were opposed to this point,
and in order not to hinder the rapid completion of our work (and we must hurry
if we are to end the Congress tomorrow as we decided) we withdrew this
point. What the Congress wants is clear in any case, and lack of time makes it
impossible to conduct debates on matters of principle.

Ishall dwell on the basic ideas expressed in our resolution. In essence, all
this is a repetition of what was said in our draft resolution at the Stockholm
Congress. The first point stresses the complete uselessness of the Duma as
such. This is a necessary idea, for extremely broad sections of the peasantry
and the petty bourgeoisie in general still place the most naïve hopes on the
Duma. It is our plain duty to dispel these naïve illusions, which are sustained
by the liberals for their own selfish class ends.

Thesecond part of the first point speaks of the uselessness of the
parliamentary path in general, and about explaining the inevitability of an open
struggle of the masses. Here we give an explanation of our positive views on
ways of getting out of the present situation. We absolutely must emphasise it,
and clearly repeat our revolutionary slogans, since wavering and vacillation,
even among the Social-Democrats, is no rare thing in such a question. Let
everyone know that Social-Democracy sticks to its old, revolutionary path.

Thesecond point is devoted to an explanation of the relation between direct
“legislative” activity in the Duma, and agitation, criticism,
propaganda, organisation. The workers’ party regards the connection between work
within and without the Duma very differently from the way the liberal
bourgeoisie regards it. It is necessary to stress this radical difference of
views. On the one hand, there are the bourgeois politicians, enraptured by their
parliamentary games behind the backs of the people. On the other hand, there is
a contingent of the organised proletariat that has been sent into the enemy camp
and is carrying on work closelyconnected withthe struggle of the
proletariatas a whole. For us there is only one, single and
indivisible, workers’ movement—the class struggle of the proletariat. All
its separate, partial forms, including the parliamentary struggle, must be fully
subordinated to it. For us it is the extra-Duma struggle of the proletariat that
is decisive. It would not be sufficient for us to say that we take into account
the economic interests and needs of the masses, etc. Such phrases (in the spirit
of the old Menshevik resolution) are hazy and can be subscribed to by any
liberal. Every liberal is ready to chatter about, the economic needs of the
peoplein general. But no liberal would be willing to subordinate Duma activity tothe class struggle;it is, however, precisely this view that we
    Social-Democrats must express with the utmost clarity. It is only by reason
    of this principle that we really distinguish ourselves from all possible
    varieties of bourgeois democracy.

Itis sometimes pointed out (especially by the members of the
Bund—alleged conciliators) that it is also necessary to note the
contrary—the links between the extra-Duma Social-Democratic struggle and
the work of the Social-Democratic Duma group. I maintain that this is false, and
can only serve to sow the most harmful parliamentary illusions. The part must
conform to the whole, and not vice versa. The Duma may temporarily serve as an
arena of the class struggle as a whole, but only if that whole is never lost
sight of, and if the revolutionary tasks of the class struggle are not
concealed.

Thenext point in our resolution is devoted to the liberal policy in the
Duma. The slogan of this policy—“save the Duma”—merely serves to
conceal the liberals’ alliance with the Black Hundreds. We must frankly tell the
people this, and explain it to them. The liberal slogan systematically corrupts
the political and class consciousness of the masses. It is our duty to wage a
ruthless struggle against this liberal haziness. By tearing the mask from
liberalism, by showing that, behind the talk about democracy, there lurks voting
hand in glove with the Black Hundreds, we shall be wresting the remnants of
democracy from the bourgeois betrayers of freedom.

Whatmust guide us in determining our Duma policy? Leaving aside all thought of
engendering conflicts for their own sake, our resolution gives a positive
definition of “timeliness” in the Social-Democratic sense of the
word—we must take into account the revolutionary crisis developing outside
the Duma, by force of objective circumstances.

Thelast point is devoted to the famous “responsible ministry”. It
was not fortuitous, but inevitable, that the liberal bourgeoisie should advance
this slogan to utilise the period of lull in its own interests, and weaken the
revolutionary consciousness of the masses. This slogan was sup ported by the
Mensheviks both in the First and SecondDumas, and during the period of the Second Duma Plekhanov said forthright in the
Menshevik newspaper that the Social-Democrats shouldmakethis demand
“their own”. Hence this slogan played a very definite role
in the history of our revolution. It is absolutely essential for the workers’
party to define its attitude towards the slogan. We must not be guided by the
fact that the liberals are not advancing this slogan at the moment: they have
temporarily withdrawn it for opportunist reasons, but actually they are striving
even more earnestly to come to terms with tsarism. And the slogan “a Duma
ministry” most graphically expresses this innate tendency of liberalism
towards a deal with tsarism.

Wedo not and cannot deny that a Duma ministry may prove a stage in the
revolution, or that circumstances may force us to utilise it. That is not the
point. The Social-Democrats utilise reforms as a by-product of the revolutionary
class struggle of the proletariat, but it is not our business to
mobilise the people for half-hearted reforms that are not feasible without a
revolutionary struggle. The Social-Democrats must expose all the inconsistency
of such slogans even from the purely democratic point of view. The
Social-Democrats must explain to the proletariat the conditions for itsvictory, and not link up its policy in advance with the possibility of
an incomplete victory, the possibility of a partial defeat—yet such are
the conditions for the problematic establishment of a “Duma
ministry”.

Letthe liberals give democracy away for a few pennies and throw away the whole
for the sake of banal and feeble, paltry dreams of doles. Social-Democracy must
rouse among the people consciousness of integral democratic tasks, and imbue the
proletariat with a clear understanding of revolutionary aims. We must enlighten
the minds of the masses of workers and develop their readiness to struggle, not
befog their minds by toning down contradictions, by toning down the aims of the
struggle. (Applause.)